Lack of toughness is absolutely the wrong diagnosis for the Canucks and why they lost the playoffs.

Teams that try to emulate last year's winner are generally doomed to fail. It isn't "how did the Bruins win," but how can the Bruins be beat (or related, why did the Canucks lose). Its hard to counter great goaltending or magically heal the wounded, but the Bruins looked the worst when the Canucks played their game -- speed, forechecking, pucks at the net. All of the Canucks opponents looked worse when the Canucks dictated play. The Buins ability to neutralize skill was assisted by injuries, but also by the fact they have a great 1-2 on D. The best counter is depth beyond their ability to match. The Canucks are an easier match up today than two days ago. Adding to strength is sometimes better than making up for a shortcoming.

I hope it works, I understand it from the hockey trade perspective and from the perspective that the more traditional line set ups is how you win. I disagree with that notion; plus, simply calling Kesler's line the 3rd line and Hodgson line the 2d line gave the Canucks one of the best 1st lines and 3rd lines in the game, and a good second line. Now, the matchups will be easier for the opposition and it will be harder to get scoring from 3 lines. (Replacing Hodgson with Pahlsson should also make it harder to score on the Canucks).

The team still is very impressive and has a good shot to go far. And there are enough unknowns to develop in this trade that there is a possibility that this is going to be a masterful deal. I'm just not putting money on that.

Lack of toughness may not have been the cause of the game 7 loss I agree. However, no question the canucks skilled forwards take a lot of abuse during and after play. Some more physical components might be able to head that off a bit. As well the canucks do have smaller wingers and adding some size on the wings will help them against those hard forechecking teams.

However, in the end having big, skilled players that can protect the puck and go to the net is certainly better than not having them. The additions Gillis has made haven't been knuckle draggers. They are guys like Booth, Bitz and now Kassian (and even Pinnizotto etc) are all guys that provide that go to the net but you do not sacrifice overall skill.

I just can't help the feeling that the Canucks thought they would have to go out of their way to hide Hodgson, particularly on the road.. I know the Canucks did very poorly on the road in the playoffs last year where they couldn't get their matchups..

I guess if you believe Silent G was going to raise his game in the playoffs then any criticisms based on what's happened in the regular season are undermined, but I don't know if that's a great bet (even though he has intangibles galore by virtually all accounts).

tantalum wrote:However, in the end having big, skilled players that can protect the puck and go to the net is certainly better than not having them. The additions Gillis has made haven't been knuckle draggers.

I agree with this -- GMMG is not interested in one-dimensional players. And I think swapping Sammuelsson for Booth is a very significant improvement in this lineup vs. last year (especially with Sammy out in the playoffs....). Booth presents a totally different threat, and that was the significant deal this year.

Kassian might end up better than Booth, insofar as most peg him as meaner and having better puck control (Booth's worst skill). But there is *so* much uncertainty.

At the same time, this trade has the real potential to be a colossal failure and a serious black mark on Gillis and the Canucks. There is no guarantee that this Kassian kid is going to be what you are all anticipating him to be, I see that it's already starting, like every new player we get - the overly high expectations. I keep hearing, Milan Lucic, Milan Lucic, Milan Lucic. Hey people, Zack Kassian could very well end up being a Isbister, Bernier, Pyatt dud. A big bodied peice of uselessness. Also, why is everyone talking like this guy is a FIGHTING MACHINE power forward like Milan Lucic. I see nowhere in his hockey history that says that other than his reputation to throw a dirty hit. Is everyone confusing him with the Kassian in Minnesota?

This trade is a huge gamble for Gillis, I respect him for that, but this trade could very well be a total failure. Cody Hodgson is a little bit more of a guaranteed kid with loads of potential, it's not out of the realm that CoHo could be the star player that it looked like he was becoming and that Zack Kassian could mount to nothing more than a Steve Bernier type, or Isbister or Pyatt all big bodied power forward players who were once high draft picks that looked like studs in the junior years.

"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

RoyalDude wrote:At the same time, this trade has the real potential to be a colossal failure and a serious black mark on Gillis and the Canucks. There is no guarantee that this Kassian kid is going to be what you are all anticipating him to be, I see that it's already starting, like every new player we get - the overly high expectations. I keep hearing, Milan Lucic, Milan Lucic, Milan Lucic. Hey people, Zack Kassian could very well end up being a Isbister, Bernier, Pyatt dud. A big bodied peice of uselessness. Also, why is everyone talking like this guy is a FIGHTING MACHINE power forward like Milan Lucic. I see nowhere in his hockey history that says that other than his reputation to throw a dirty hit. Is everyone confusing him with the Kassian in Minnesota?

This trade is a huge gamble for Gillis, I respect him for that, but this trade could very well be a total failure. Cody Hodgson is a little bit more of a guaranteed kid with loads of potential, it's not out of the realm that CoHo could be the star player that it looked like he was becoming and that Zack Kassian could mount to nothing more than a Steve Bernier type, or Isbister or Pyatt all big bodied power forward players who were once high draft picks that looked like studs in the junior years.

why is everyone fixated on Kassian? Kassian envy?! We got a pretty good young D prospect in return and if he winds up being in our top 4 then I would be pretty happy with the trade in the years to come. CoHo was not giving us much more in terms of the defensive side of the game and we already have 6 guys that can score in different ways, what we got are not rentals either. In the off season/at the draft Cory goes and we get a big scoring winger back.

RoyalDude wrote:At the same time, this trade has the real potential to be a colossal failure and a serious black mark on Gillis and the Canucks. There is no guarantee that this Kassian kid is going to be what you are all anticipating him to be, I see that it's already starting, like every new player we get - the overly high expectations. I keep hearing, Milan Lucic, Milan Lucic, Milan Lucic. Hey people, Zack Kassian could very well end up being a Isbister, Bernier, Pyatt dud. A big bodied peice of uselessness. Also, why is everyone talking like this guy is a FIGHTING MACHINE power forward like Milan Lucic. I see nowhere in his hockey history that says that other than his reputation to throw a dirty hit. Is everyone confusing him with the Kassian in Minnesota?

It's you against the world RD, just like usual - the lone beacon of reason and insight in the dark wilderness that is CanucksCorner.com.

People say "Milan Lucic" along with terms like "poor man's" or "upside" - nobody thinks we have a guarantee of a player of that ilk, just a player who is promising and could develop along those lines. We all know that promising players fail to deliver on said promise all the time.

The simple fact is that we are all fairly casual fans and in order to relate a player's skill set or disposition the easiest way is to use the shorthand of comparing them to other notable players with whom other posters are going to have some familiarity. So maybe just get over it Dude, nobody is saying that Kassian is going to singlehandedly beat up half the roster of our playoff opponents, and most have no illusions about him playing in the top six any time soon.

That being said, I completely agree with this:

This trade is a huge gamble for Gillis, I respect him for that, but this trade could very well be a total failure. Cody Hodgson is a little bit more of a guaranteed kid with loads of potential, it's not out of the realm that CoHo could be the star player that it looked like he was becoming and that Zack Kassian could mount to nothing more than a Steve Bernier type, or Isbister or Pyatt all big bodied power forward players who were once high draft picks that looked like studs in the junior years.

We just won't know what we've got out of this trade, and while we will be able to criticize it's timing as soon as the coming offseason it could be years before we see what kind of assets Kassian and Gragnani develop into for this team.

Reefer2 wrote:One thing that I have not thought about a lot is the addition of Gragnani and only losing Sulzer. Gragnani is only 24 and looks to have a lot of potential to become an offensive defenceman.

This should give AV more options instead of playing Rome/Alberts every game.

RoyalDude wrote:At the same time, this trade has the real potential to be a colossal failure and a serious black mark on Gillis and the Canucks. There is no guarantee that this Kassian kid is going to be what you are all anticipating him to be, I see that it's already starting, like every new player we get - the overly high expectations. I keep hearing, Milan Lucic, Milan Lucic, Milan Lucic. Hey people, Zack Kassian could very well end up being a Isbister, Bernier, Pyatt dud. A big bodied peice of uselessness. Also, why is everyone talking like this guy is a FIGHTING MACHINE power forward like Milan Lucic. I see nowhere in his hockey history that says that other than his reputation to throw a dirty hit. Is everyone confusing him with the Kassian in Minnesota?

This trade is a huge gamble for Gillis, I respect him for that, but this trade could very well be a total failure. Cody Hodgson is a little bit more of a guaranteed kid with loads of potential, it's not out of the realm that CoHo could be the star player that it looked like he was becoming and that Zack Kassian could mount to nothing more than a Steve Bernier type, or Isbister or Pyatt all big bodied power forward players who were once high draft picks that looked like studs in the junior years.

why is everyone fixated on Kassian? Kassian envy?! We got a pretty good young D prospect in return and if he winds up being in our top 4 then I would be pretty happy with the trade in the years to come. CoHo was not giving us much more in terms of the defensive side of the game and we already have 6 guys that can score in different ways, what we got are not rentals either. In the off season/at the draft Cory goes and we get a big scoring winger back.

The key is that the Canucks got two young players (Kassian and Gragnani) for Hodgson. Sulzer was basically a throw-in to get rid of one contract for the Canucks. It might not be the best deal but it definitely addressed two needs for the Canucks, size up front and a potential top-four defenseman. Kassian is under contract for two more seasons and Gragnani is a RFA without much bargaining power. The worst case scenario is that Kassian will be a third and fourth line winger for the Canucks. In the best case scenario, Kassian could also play with the Sedins (remember Brookbank, he scored two goals in two games playing with the Sedins). Burrows might decide to be an UFA after next season. This deal could potential give MG another option.